Fletcher _Franz_ V Jamaican Redevelopment Foundation.pdf

success. They had agreed to pay the proceeds of sale directly to the respondent toredeem the mortgage to the full extent of the value of the property at the time of thesale. They considered it inequitable and unjust for the respondent to sell Banana Walkto anyone else. They therefore lodged caveat no. 1630543 to protect their interests,maintaining that they had a right to redeem the mortgage to the extent of the value ofthe property, and prayed the court’s aid by way of an injunction to restrain therespondent from selling the property by public auction or private treaty to anyone else.[8] The claimants then amended the fixed date claim form to include an alternativeclaim for relief. They now also sought:“A declaration that mortgages 470252, 497057 and 911389are invalid and/or void and/or unenforceable against theClaimants.”Mr Fletcher deposed to a further affidavit in support of this alternative claim. Heindicated that the mortgages had been granted on 23 June 1987, 7 June 1989, and 27November 1995 respectively. He also stated that at the time the transfer of themortgages was effected, the loans were in default and were part of the bad debtportfolio of the bank taken over by the Financial Institutions Services Limited. He saidthat the original debtor, Kingston Armature & Dynamo Works Limited (the company),had received formal notices of demand from the respondent for the amounts ofJ$139,254,535.00 and US$73,299.00 in May 2009 and he referred to the fact that hehad been sent one also in the same amounts on the basis that he had guaranteed theloan. The company had received registered statutory notices in respect of themortgages and one had been directed to Ruby Fletcher relative to Banana Walk. It was